Skip to main content
10:00 am
the he was having a drinking when he unsteadily plugged the archduke and his wife. as he's telling this, recounting it and describing the ethnic conflict in the balkans in his own experience being in slovenia in '65 and the serbs and the crow ats. the pack of journalists are backing slowly away. [laughter] ..
10:01 am
>> but he understood, and what emerges so clearly in this memo, was the role of ethnicity. and i just like to read two sentences from it. but this is the president-elect clinton. it would not, for example, be too great a task to a stretcher secretary of state to work up a scenario for ethnic conflicts between now and year 2000, that what concerned the united states and which might or might not be avoided or diverse and. something that would still be useful today. i beseech you not to ask for caa. [laughter] [applause]
10:02 am
>> richard and lawrence, you took a lot of political sniper fire at senator moynihan side in his 24 year career in the senate. tell us a little bit about his evolution. and, dick, why don't you start come and lawrence, speak up. >> the lieutenant governor has mentioned the 1965 raise for city council president, and there is one story that has entered the lower, was not there. the story goes like this. senator moynihan was on this ticket, was running for city council president. there was another candidate whose campaign manager was
10:03 am
peter. this man, moynihan, this may moynihan has never had a job. [laughter] >> as of this man's moynihan being informed of this took offense to it and set the following. i was working on the docks of new york before he bought his first shore up your palm made. [laughter] many people think the italian boat disappeared. but i venture. with respect to the 1976 primary, not only was congresswoman in the race, but also ramsey clark and paul o'dwyer were in the race. i think it's fair to say that if they were not in the race, there
10:04 am
would have been no senator moynihan. in fact, he cared each part of the state. but by very small margin. he carried the city i bought 3000 votes, though he lost manhattan and the bronx, he carried the suburbs by about 3000 votes. remarkably enough he lost suffolk county. and he carried upstate by another another 3000 votes, even though, liz, i know you forgotten this, we lost joe crinkles erie county. the result was that he won by about 10,000 votes, or what he at the time as a whopping 1%. [laughter] >> the campaign was remarkable. i think the most remarkable part about it was that as far as can be told, he made up his mind to run on june 9, and he announced
10:05 am
on june 10 for a primer that took place on september 14. that would be absolutely impossible today, and it was remarkable, remarkable feat even in those days. so transport won the primary by a whopping 1%, then he faced james l. buckley in the general election when he won by about 600,000 votes. the election itself was not without incident. at one point senator buckley apparently carrying a page from mr. rao's book, begin referring to pat moynihan as professor moynihan. professor moyar had this, professor moynihan debt. and a reporter informed ambassador moynihan others and he pulled himself up to his full height and said, the mudslinging has begun.
10:06 am
[laughter] >> thereafter he entered the senate, and i think it's fair to say that not everyone anticipated that he would be a great senator that he eventually became. there was a certain talk about the show of force is an workhorses, and which one would he be. the idea was a workhorse i think was put aside right away. and that's because -- the city and the state were in deep financial culture in 1977 the loan guarantee, the federal loan guarantee was up for reauthorization, and he and senator chavez went to every hearing of the banking committee, and sat with the other senators, as senate protocol allows, and they did is because william proxmire of
10:07 am
those, who was the chairman of the banking committee, opposed the guarantees. by the time the loan guarantees were guaranteed it became clear to people that senator moynihan was a work horse and not a show horse. it was his you that senators represent states, and that the house of representatives represents people. as a result of this he thought it was his duty to, quite frankly, reform the way the federal money was disbursed, and the formula that dick mention. one of these formulas was the so-called hill burton formula. the way that worked was it took a difference of income between four states and rich states, and that once, the difference i being ascertain, squarely. senator moynihan proposed the use of the square root.
10:08 am
[laughter] he didn't get very far, but early on he began to get some of his form was changed it's a new kind was able to -- so the "new york times" wrote in 1979 that moynihan saw its first legislative was to state. and the time since senator moynihan recognizes the value of my bills and amendments to new york. at the outset of the battle for public works formula, he be a lloyd benson of texas, not an easy thing to do, and others about a 135 and austria state. that has been repeated case after case. soon after you establish himself as the champion of new york, he also began to address
10:09 am
legislatively large public issues. the first one was in 1983. david stockman had declared social security to be a ponzi scheme. the greenspan commission was formed in order to come up with a solution for social security long-term problems. senator moynihan was named a member of the commission. and there were, made such as a solvent, for at least succeeding 30 years. senator moynihan love being on the commission because they had secret meetings at blair house, and he wouldn't tell anybody about them, and he would sneak off to them. there's much more in the world of legislation. i'm just going, and is the highlights. maybe lawrence will talk about the particulars. the 86 attacks at came along
10:10 am
come was important to note because the deduction of state and local taxes was threatened. the deduction was saved largely thanks to senator moynihan. the 80 welfare bill was the first welfare -- was a welfare reform bill, the first one that required fathers took some responsibility for their children, and also invited educational work benefits for mothers in order to come in senator moynihan's phrase, break the cycle of dependency. the bill was never fully funded, and so it didn't work quite as senator moynihan had thought. but it did establish him as the leading expert in this area. 1991, there was the transportation efficiency act. and there are a fair number of stature who worked on this. the genius of this was a was the first bill that took highway
10:11 am
trust fund money which was gas tax money and allowed it to be used for such things as mass transit. 1993, the budget reconciliation act raise taxes. and as a result of raising the taxes, it was demonstrated it would be nice if they pay their debts, the rate of interest that was paid on public at the neatly dropped. it was at that time that senator phil gramm accused senator moynihan as having, shepherded through the senate the largest tax increase in history of the that state. senator moynihan wasn't going to stand for this year and so his reply was, he was rather frank. he said that's alive. it's the largest tax increase in the history of the world. [laughter]
10:12 am
>> senator moynihan also made his remarks on this period as america's leading public intellectual, and is doing this pretty time he predicted the demise of the soviet union. he issued his annual report, demonstrate that new york wasn't getting its full moneys worth back from the taxes it was paying. he joined senator byrd and his opposition in court to the line-item veto. he established the secrecy commission, which has been mentioned, it was senator moynihan's view that secrecy was so a form of bureaucratic regulation. and for him what it really meant was the public wasn't going to know, but the secrets were. anywhere american policymakers going to know. but, of course, our enemies knew
10:13 am
every single one of these. also in 1979, any times magazine article written by steve rattner, senator moynihan said it's true the senate is along a place where you don't speak for two years. senate traditions are breaking down. the average age of sinners is dropping each year. but it is still a place that reduce longevity. the things i do our incremental. i can do a lot of good if i stay there a long time and keep at it and that's just what i have in mind to do. and so he did. [applause] >> my task as i was told once i figured out i could do this, was that i would summarize in five
10:14 am
minutes pat moynihan's senate career. i couldn't summarize even the seven years of the senate career that i spent with him in that amount of time. so i'm just going to touch on a couple of things. senators have come to be known for one thing come and that's what a couple of reasons. very few of them have become pretty level beyond the ability to handle one thing. but the press, the press is absolutely incapable of paying attention to more than one thing in a senator. and so they will attach these labels to them. what i like about what you're hearing from dick is i think probably half the people in them are not aware of how deeply senator moynihan was involved in the details of domestic legislation, including infrastructure, taxation, that sort of thing. we all knew that he was a leader on foreign policy. former ambassador to the united nations, every time he rose to speak in the senate floor,
10:15 am
people listened. leader is one of the empty words in our political vocabulary these days. it is the rarest thing. and by leader i mean only this, only this, that senators would actually listen when this senator spoke. and as many as a dozen out of the hundred on occasion would think differently after that senator spoke. that does not happen in today's senate. no matter which sender is speaking. you have a certain sense of the highlights of his career. a couple of things worth mentioning. and the book by the way it's a beautiful piece. i consider it co-authored by steve and by pat moynihan. there is real authorship in the alignment of these letters and the flow of this story. it tells the story. it tells the story of a man who i thought i knew intimately, who
10:16 am
i spoke to every day for seven years. i thought i knew everything in his head, not just in those days but everything. and i am learning more from this book that i could possibly learn about someone who i thought i knew so well. in here you will find beautiful pieces about ruth bader ginsburg and sonia sotomayor. neither of whom would be on the supreme court today were it not for daniel patrick moynihan. so when you look at his career and you think about the highlights, you'll be reading an opinion of justice sotomayor 10 years from now that is in a sense a moynihan achievement. there are very few senators who play the long game. i just want to do one, make one note about infrastructure. because reporters can only
10:17 am
grapple with one thing, senator moynihan was a junior colleague, was labeled senator pothole because the thought thing you had a bottle on the street, he could get that fixed. which, of course, was a policy. that's it has nothing to do with potholes but we get the idea. just about no one in the news media knew was that there was, if it was a senator pothole, that's all good and well, but there was also senator thruway. new york state, as in so many ways, being smarter than the country in so many things, started what was to become the interstate highway system before president eisenhower got the idea and thought we should have this interconnected interstate highway system. so new york state made the mistake of building a thruway before there was any federal money for it. [laughter] daniel patrick moynihan, through his seat on the vibrant public
10:18 am
works committee, which was essentially to become his chairmanship, got the united states of america to pay for the new york thruway after the fact. [laughter] [applause] >> payback to the state of new york for having contributed that section of the interstate highway system. these are all in the unknown sections of his achievements. i want to tell you a quick story about my first day on the job which i did not realize was my first day on the job, because liz moynihan was trying to lure me into this job that i was resisting. it was the 1980 reelection campaign, and i was only interested in participating in that. i had no interest in politics or government, but i did have, and she knew this, i can't an interest in this character, this moynihan character. and she would invite me backstage to different things things. she invited me to the day with are going to look at their scripts for the tv commercials of the 1980 campaign pic i'd
10:19 am
never seen a script for television commercial, movie scripts and long form scripts. these things are a page or page and a half. they cost a lot of money. you pay people a lot of money. they had written 10 of them and the exercise of it was to select four, the campaign would make for and then decide which ones to put on the air. so the ritual is very much like show business by the way with a cast of issue or in movie or read the script aloud at the table, called table read. they had a table read of the commercials, and the people working at the firm would read the commercial. and so when they finish reading the social security commercial in which there is the claim that moynihan saves social security, and it said, what they said would be this woman farmer in upstate new york named annie. and we get to the end of the script, and i thought there was nothing to say, i was just a
10:20 am
witness at this. we get to script and senator moynihan says, now, this tragedy, is that going to be an actress? laugh and the commercial burgers and say, well, yes, that's we do this. he said, well then, that's allies. and i didn't save social security. he looks at this thing that the page long as is long does it take to write these things, 10 minutes? these are people are being paid hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars. they spend months and months to write these things. these are 10 minutes? he said do you have a typewriter here? [laughter] which is in at the age of the computer and they didn't have a typewriter. so he asked for a legal pad. he left the room. i looked at my watch. he returned in eight minutes, and he read his social security script or martial from his legal pad. and as you discover in this book
10:21 am
there are so many facets that were unknowable by anyone other than liz who could spend her life with him. you discovered -- i discover something in that mode. i knew he was a great essayist i had no idea he was a great script writer. [laughter] >> he reads and performs his 30-second script and in the middle he said cut to bob dole saying -- [laughter] >> pat moynihan and i saves social security come and goes on. well, this is brilliant script writing, first of all. but secondly everyone in the room is thinking bob dole is not going to say that. and senator moynihan says we'll he did. i saw him on c-span in the middle of the night up there in canada somewhere in the field saying pat moynihan and i saves social security. we would just get that tape. and we did.
10:22 am
[laughter] >> and bob dole did indeed appear in a moynihan commercial saying pat moynihan save social security. when the clinton administratio came in, there was a harvard professor coming down to washington for his turn in the administration, and i was running the confirmation hearings, he came by for his visit. young professor, senator moynihan well. he said to them at a certain point in the conversation, because he knew the system at harvard as you are allowed to come to an effort years but hold onto your tenure. and he said to them, you know, there's no sense getting involved in this stuff if you're not going to stay at it 30 years. and there's a passage in steve's book that is relevant to this. again, i discovered of my because it's a mellow that senator roe about a conversation
10:23 am
he and i had. i had no idea he was writing these things down. and it's during the clinton administration when hillary clinton was working on health care reform. and it's short, it's quick to 21st, 1994, a few days ago paul ellwood dropped in to see lawrence. he told him his first meeting with mrs. clinton, he said to her that many of the changes that she was hoping for are already happening. she said no, they are not. he said, but costs are already going down. she said, know they are not. he coming to lawrence that what he had studied the subject all his life, she has studied the subject of three weeks, and already knows more than he. in fact in that year, 1994, health care costs were going down, and they did for a prepared. but the frustrations that senator moynihan had an
10:24 am
governing were always with his friends. this was a family like thing. we expected nothing, nothing on the finance committee. malcolm, this wonderful gem from wyoming town he lived out there on the right side of the republican party and was a pleasure to have on the committee at all times. all of our strength, always, with people who were trying to do what we're trying to do and have differences about how to do it strategic, policy differences. that's why democrats are always having tensions with each other because democrats are activists about government, actively trying to do things, actively by the way, willing to take risks in the government to run governmental experiment that might or might not work. there's a tremendous amount of worry and anticipation about what might or might not work in government choices. and that's what those kinds of tensions come from. and so i mentioned that point of that memo, a constant
10:25 am
frustration for someone like senator who did say that people coming, but new senators, new members a very administration, democrat and republican, would come in and save your experts because they read the briefing book last night. and he had to struggle without overtime. and it wasn't an easy thing for him to do. steve mentioned the contrast between the nixon white house and the idealized version that we created in the west wing which provokes a quick little west wing story. in the first west wing script i had to write, season one on page one, the first scene was to be interior oval office today. and i'm typing that and i realize i have a problem here because i've seen this wonderful presidential character, the greater of the show, but i've never seen a president like that. in my adulthood does not been a president that i've much admired, here i was to
10:26 am
fictionalize one. and i had no real writing exercise to get me into this scene, and the steering a blank page for a while, it finally occurred to me, what would senator moynihan do? and so that got me through writing these, many of these things. by the way, my little device in that show which is not easy to detect is that yes, the politicians are making a noble choices every once in a while, but i in my script i always made sure there was an absolute last resort. [laughter] >> that they tried everything else first and got back into the corner of having to do a semi-honest thing. you know, dick gets a lot of lastly talk that senator moynihan, and that's always do when we are together, the moynihan graduates. we just laugh. i remember earlier in the campaign experience in 88, we
10:27 am
were reminiscing, and how they came to me and she said, the key thing she said is he was so funny. well, i didn't get that at that point in my moynihan experience. i was too new to get that. six years later i was on the phone with well-known comedy writer in los angeles want us to working in the senate, and i found myself sitting in the middle of the night to him, you know, he's the funniest guy i've ever known. we will not be able to convey to you how funny he was in personal conversational situations. many of the jokes are situational. you wouldn't get them. but you all know he was the master of the obscure records. and he was that before google. this was incredibly burdensome on his staff because they would be that moment where he's going out to the senate floor and he needs that citation from that
10:28 am
1832 french volume that he knows is somewhat in the library of congress, and he knows the first thing of the author but not the last. he knows the reference in it is about this war that occurred in 16 something. and he needs that now. in the pre-google days this was a virtual impossibility. but he would make those references, as you all heard, when you heard him speak, constantly. and in my last week on the job, that was one of those passages, kidney the obscure reference, i need it now, i'm going to the floor, we got seven minutes, we got three minutes, and it's not here. the staff is panicking, and the senator and i alone in his office looking at the clock, waiting to walk out the door, waiting as long as we can to get this obscure fact that is
10:29 am
absolutely essential to his speech. and so the staff isn't going to make it in time is running out. as he opens the door, he steps out into the hallway, and is wrigley would happen, we would start walking down the hall and 30 seconds later staff members would come running after us with the obscure fact, here it is. that wasn't happening. we were walking farther and farther away from his office, and he said, well, if they don't get it, i'll just make it up. [laughter] [applause] >> and i thought what? it is my sense that that moment was his going away present for me. that peel back the magic just a
10:30 am
bit. it's also my sense, and if i make it up what he meant was, i'll say 1826, maybe it was 1828. and my sense is he probably made it up once every other year, because the staff was extraordinary. and he was extraordinary. and we loved him. [applause] .. >> could i tell one of these
10:31 am
too? >> let me, there are actually questions or cards that were distributed for people to ask questions. we don't have that much time. susan wanted to say a few words while you're filling out those cards or while we're collecting them. >> and steve has something he's dying to add. >> i mean, if this becomes an anecdoteathon, you know, we could probably go -- [laughter] >> collecting the questions, i want to say that across the street at the museum of the city of new york right after q&a we are going to have a rousing irish party. [laughter] and i thank lady lynn rester deroth child for making the celebration possible, and you all are invited. [applause] you've got any questions?
10:32 am
>> steve of, why don't you -- >> oh, larry reminded me of my quote story like that too. this is the you are pan affairs council, remember, it's moynihan versus burns. burns' assistant is marty anderson, a very bright guy, the youngest-tenured professor at columbia. and he's trying to pin pat down to saying that his proposal is a negative income tax. it was a negative income tax, but those were dirty words that we tried not to use. and so anderson says, let us call a spade a spade. and pat says, as oscar wilde said, anyone who calls a spade a spade should be compelled to use one. [laughter] now, i thought he made that up, so i went and looked it up and, oh, no, it was an exact quote. he had it right. [laughter] >> someone asked a question that
10:33 am
i wondered. the favorite moynihan quote of many people, including president obama who's used it many times, is everyone's entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own fact. but i could never find the context of that remark. does anyone remember it or know it? >> i, my feeling is he was quoting someone or paraphrasing someone, but i can't i can't re. >> he said it many times. >> and senator al franken said it frequently on the floor of the -- recently on the floor of the senate, and i called him and said you'll get much more attention to that among the older members if you preface it by saying, as senator moynihan used to say. [laughter] and he does that now. >> okay. everyone, i want to thank --
10:34 am
there are apparently no more questions. people want to go to this party -- [laughter] i can't imagine why. well, thank you all. but thank you, especially from the bottom of my heart to all of you. this is an emotional evening for a lot of us, but it's a wonderful evening, and i thank the museum, i thank all of you, i thank the moynihans, and i thank our wonderful panel, and let's party. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> this event was hosted by the museum of the city of new york. for more information visit >> you're watching booktv on
10:35 am
c-span c-span2. here's our prime time lineup for tonight: >> every weekend booktv brings you 48 hours of history, biography and public affairs. here's a portion of one of our programs. >> in addition to a questionnaire that covered a
10:36 am
wide variety of background items, the yaf members were asked to imagine the nation's history from 1966 to the end of the sent b ri -- century. in other words, the year 2000. and so they were looking ahead for 34 years and can imagining what they perceived or what they were viewing as what would happen to our country for the remainder of the century. and the graduate student who was doing this study, richard, was surprised by what he described as the belief of yaf members that a continued drift to the welfare state and socialism and moral decay would be reversed in the near future by an awakening of the american people resulting and moving the train of events back to common sense.
10:37 am
richard also surveyed members of student for a democratic society which was the leading new left or leftist organization on campuses of the '60s. and the young democrats and the college republicans. and he reported on his results in an article that he co-wrote and was published in an academic journal. it's interesting to view some of the projections of these yaf members in 1966. one yaf member predicted a redirection of american society towards freedom and conservative principles. remember, again, he's writing in 1966, and here's what he said: the united states led by hypocritical and unprincipled leaders becomes very bureaucrat ic and increasingly socialistic. the united states generally loses the battles in foreign
10:38 am
affairs because it does not present its philosophy of free enterprise, libertarian beliefs, etc. as well as it should. sounds almost familiar to the current day, doesn't it? finally, as he predicted, in the 1960 -- excuse me, in the 1980s or thereabouts the american people realize that economic security is not necessarily freedom. they realize their freedoms are being abridged. they realize the economy is becoming too regimented, and the government too bureaucratic. the people will then change the trend of events back to common sense conservative principles of government. remember his prediction was 1980, and if you recall from history, 1980, as it turned out, was indeed, the year in which
10:39 am
the american people voted for a conservative president, ronald reagan, who did, indeed -- [applause] who did, indeed, change the trend of events back to common sense conservative principles of government. richard cited another yafer as predicting the following events in the near future from 1966 to 2000. his predictions were as follows: 1968, republican victory; 1972, reagan elected president; 1976, reagan reelected; 1978, fall of soviet russia; 1985, end of welfare, social security and medicare; 2000, end of unions. now, as richard and his co-author noted compared with their sds counterparts on the left, yafers seemed to have a
10:40 am
mountain of naive faith. well, let's look back nearly 45 years later, and we can see that this naive faith seems to have been rather accurate in it prediction of future events. change a few of the dates, modify a few of the conclusions, and these yaf members who were then only high school and college students, have laid out the political history of the last third of the 20th century. because consider nixon's victory in 1968 brought both a realignment of american politics as well as, admittedly, the disgrace of watergate, impeachment and resignation. ray ban's victory came -- reagan's victory came eight years after the yafer had predicted, but was indeed, followed by a landslide re-election.
10:41 am
it took nine more years for the berlin wall to fall, closely followed by the ce poise of the -- demise of the soviet soviet union. then this his 199be 3 state of the union message, a new democratic president promised to, quote, end welfare as we know it. and the reforms of our welfare system were enacted a short while later when republicans gained the majority in congress in this -- in 1994. two years after that original state of the union message, that same president declared, quote, the error of big -- era of big government is over in the his state of the union message. >> to watch this program in its entirety, go to simply type the title or the author's name at the top left of the screen and click search. >> we're at the national press club talking with andrew young
10:42 am
about the new book, "walk in my shoes." can you tell us how you came up with the idea for doing this book? >> well, he came to interview me when i was mayor, and he was in second grade. and we started a friendship. i was impressed with him as a second grader, and then he's been through dartmouth and london school of economics. now he's a banker with jpmorgan. and we're 50 years apart, so it's an intergenerational dialogue. we don't agree on anything. and we say things and do things to provoke each other intellectually. but what that does is, it makes for lively kind of salty ideas. >> what are some of these debates that you two have? >> we have debates on really most things. i think one of our biggest
10:43 am
debates is on the economy and why that's unemployment right now, how we should go about solving that, civil rights. he was a big leader in the civil rights move. the jobs and economic front was part and parcel of the civil rights movement. we argue should we take a more keynesian approach to solving this. we also argue about some funny things, like he believes in arranged marriages. i don't, actually, and my tradition is this indian tradition he says, you know, kadir, i think we need to find someone for you, and i say, thanks but no thanks. so we argue about love; life, religion and politics. >> is there a sequel in the works? >> i don't know, you never can tell because this we finished about a year ago, and we still talk probably every other week, and we still find something to disagree about. but the thing is that the world is a complex place, and he's
10:44 am
traveling around now, i've traveled around for more than 100 countries in my lifetime, and so we're always comparing notes. but our real objective is to try to understand and help him have enough vision to create the future. >> and what are you helping him do? >> i think we're trying to get this book on the kindle and get him going with technology, but more importantly i'm rying to help him -- trying to help him understand the financial world and why hedge funds and private equity funds can help. they're not the enemy, they're actually part of the solution, and we need financial engineering. some people say financial engineering led to our football crisis -- financial crisis, i say it's a way out. >> and i say both are true. >> thank you both. >> bad engineering that led to the financial crisis.
10:45 am
greed got out of hand. so we don't have to agree. but we're not disagreeable. >> thank you both very much. >> next, paul kengor, political science professor at groves city college in pennsylvania. he contends that numerous progressives have assisted america's adversaries. the author profiles high-ranking government officials that he argues were duped by foreign governments including fdr, jimmy carter and ted kennedy. paul kengor presents his book at the heritage foundation in this washington d.c. >> good afternoon. thank you for joining us here at the heritage foundation. as directer of lectures and seminars, it's my privilege to welcome everyone to our louis lairman auditorium. we, of course, welcome those who join us on our web site as well as those who will be seeing us on c-span booktv.
10:46 am
we would ask everyone in-house to check that cell phones have been turned off, and questions or comments can be submitted at any time simply e-mailing us at hosting our discussion this afternoon is heather sexton. ms. sexton serves as directer of our young leaders program. she oversees heritage issues, outreach efforts to the next generation of political activists, grassroots leaders and public policy professionals. among the programs under her oversight are our internship program, campus outreach activities, student group briefings and our young leaders' program, virtual think tank webcasts. before serving as directer of this program she was our intern coordinator as well as having served as a heritage intern herself. a graduate of the university of michigan, get that clear -- the university of michigan -- [laughter] she earned her bachelor's degree in english and political
10:47 am
science. please join me in welcoming heather sexton. heather? [applause] >> thank you, john. well, i'm delighted to introduce dr. paul kengor for you today, professor of political science at groves city college and executive directer of the center for vision and values. a groves city think tank policy center which focuses on advancing freedom with christian scholarship. paul is also a visiting fellow at the hoover institution on war, revolution and peace at stanford university. he's a frequent contributor to msnbc, c-span and fox news. in addition, he has written for "the new york times", "wall street journal," political science quarterly and many other publications. among the numerous books he has authored are, "the crusader: ronald reagan and the fall of communism," "god and george w. bush, "" and william p. clark,
10:48 am
ronald reagan's top hand." his newly-released book, "dupes," we are really looking forward to hearing your discussion of this troubling aspect of history, the prominent role of the dupe. please join me in welcoming dr. paul kengor. [applause] >> thank you, heather. john, and everybody here at heritage, everybody for coming. lee edwards, i see him here. i really struggled with how to organize this talk because i turned in a manuscript of 250,000 words and about a i thousand pages. and i think the book "god and ronald reagan "was somewhere around 100,000 words. so that gives you an idea of just how enormous the task was and just how much dupes -- how
10:49 am
many dupes are out there. i'm not joking when i said this could be volume one in a multivolume set. and there were a number of people that i thought i'd have full chapters on, and there turned out to be so much information, i'd fill up an entire box, and i'd just mark, for example, henry wallace. and at some point, i've got to punt p on this one, i could do a whole book just on this guy. first, i'm going to give you an overview as to why i chose this subject. my goal, hopefully the important importance of the issue. and then work upwards chronologically through three cases that i think are very telling and represent different types of individuals. an academic, somebody involvedded in education, a writer and also a politician. and, specifically, i'll talk about john dewey, frank marshall davis and ted kennedy as examples. during the q&a there's a lot of other people who we could talk about as well including actors,
10:50 am
all kinds of people in hollywood, humphrey bogart, for example, who i talk about in the book as a dupe. but there was also, as you'll note in the appendix of the book, i find a bogart in the communist party usa archives, and i look at that very carefully as to whether that could possibly be humphrey bogart. that's something we could also talk about during the q&a. but first, why i did this. three components: scholarship, partisanship and the issue of redemption. scholarship, i notice that nobody had ever done a book on the role of dupes. in american history. and, in fact, did a google search on the term, and maybe two or three books in all the library of congress even have the word in the title. and yet it's a word that goes back to the founding of the republic itself. you'd probably be surprised to know that george washington used
10:51 am
the word dupe, dupes in his farewell address. so he was warning about it since the founding of the republic. adam smith who was not an american but, of course, was around the time of the find founding, the wealth of nations talks about dupes. but then suddenly it took an ugly upsurge with the founding of the wolf vick revolution in russia and the launching of the bolshevik revolution in russia in october 1917. and then after that even more specifically with the founding of the common the term, the communist international in moscow in march of 1919. if you're following this con logically, it gets really bad with the founding of the communist party in america in chicago this september of 1919. as i was looking in one particular cache of documents which are right over here at the
10:52 am
library of congress, i mean, there's hundreds of reels of microfiche. and when i would go there in the summertime when professors and academics are off -- not like we work a lot to begin with during the school year -- i never once, even one time was told by an archivist, oh, you can't have the reel because somebody else has it out. hardly anyone's even looking at this stuff. and that's because most academic historians are on the left, and when you see what these files say, they are a real indictment of many things that the left has believed. among them, i started going through, started spinning the different reels of microfiche, and one of the first documents that you come to is a september 1919 document from the communist party of america and its founding on blue island avenue in chicago, illinois. i have a bunch of different documents, i could have done powerpoint but as some of my former students in here know i'm
10:53 am
technically computer illiterate, so i didn't bother with that. they're in the book, i'll try to describe them. but this one right here, communist party of america, it doesn't -- it looks like this on microfiche, it's actually a good represumptuous, these are 100-year-old documents. but the executive secretary, and can it's very brief. he's sending it to the folks at the communist international in moscow. in the name of the communist workers of the united states organized in the communist party of america, i extend greetings to the communist party of russia. long live to soviet republics, love live the congress international. fraternally yours, executive secretary, charles ruthenberg who today is buried on the wall of the kremlin. but as you see these right off, you learn what the american government learned and what anticommunists said throughout the 20th century, that the american communist party was not
10:54 am
just another political party. i mean, they were loyal soviet patriots. they were dedicated to the soviet -- their materials ended up in the communist international files in moscow. and we only have them now because they were declassified by the yeltsin government in the early 1990s. so you see here right off, and this is why i think scholars on the left are ignoring this stuff. what the anticommunists said all along was right. there was this tight bond, this inseparable bond between the american party and the soviet party. another document, this is from, again, chicago where the party was founded. this one is from november 24, 1919. and it says, to the bureau of the communist international, okay? as international secretary, again, charles ruthenberg of the american party, i make application for admission of the communist party of america to
10:55 am
the bureau of the communist international. they're filing their formal membership application in this. it's a three-page document, and you get to the very end, last page just a few lines, and it says here: the final struggle of the communist proletariat will be waged in the united states. our conquest of power alone assuring the world soviet republic. realizing all this, the commune i party prepares for the struggle. long live the communist international, long live the world revolution. fraternally yours, international secretary charles ruthenberg. once again, you see that connection. why are dupes so important in this? dupes are so critical because dupes are people on the progressive left, liberal left who weren't communist themselves but sometimes ran in the same circles, had some of the same ideas, shared some of the same sympathies, redistribution of wealth, workers' rights,
10:56 am
nationalization, different issues. they weren't as far to the left as the communists, but over a little bit. and i started finding throughout these styles clear evidence, letter after letter, document after document where the boys of the common term in moscow and the boys in new york or chicago or wherever are very closely laying out plans and campaigns to try to very deliberately dupe progressives and liberals. go to thrallly, do this -- go to thrallly, do this, don't let them know you're a communist. if you're charged with being a communist, say it's red-baiting paranoia. call it mccarthy im, right? deny that you're an actual communist. and they would go to these rallies, and they would do that. they'd say, we're not communists, and the progressives and liberals would say, they're not communists, and the
10:57 am
anticommunist would be the red-baiting rep ro baits, the paranoiding toly diets and cavemen. so the dupes were any popular support. to try to get larger popular support for their cause, progred liberals. so that's why i looked at this. an important point i want to make on partisanship. they didn't always have success, and i appreciate the chance to say this to a conservative audience in particular. there were a lot of good anticommunist liberals and anticommunist democrats who weren't duped, arthur schlesinger jr. wrote a piece for life magazine in 1946 which at that point was probably the largest circulation in all of america. and schlesinger said this: communists have succeeded in hiding their true face from american liberals. the reds are posing a most serious danger to-inials. they are engaged in a massive attack on the moral fabric of
10:58 am
the american left, unquote. george f. cannon said the same kind of thing, trying to warn people on the left don't be duped by these guys. don't be taken in. the list of one-time dupe p liberals who changed, said, boy, was i duped and then changed and weren't duped again, humphrey bogart, eleanor or roosevelt, paul douglas, john dewey. from hollywood, lucille ball, jimmy cagney, olivia dehalve lin, melanie on gone with the wind. and also a later anticommunist crusader conservative republican president named ronald reagan who admitted in 1946 that he had been misled, that he had been duped as well. democrats, on the other hand, there were anticommunist democrats and liberals from the very beginning who i think were never duped and right away recognized the danger that the
10:59 am
communists posed to their plans and their policies. and i'm going to surprise you here. the first president who had to deal with this at the founding of the party, founding of the american communist party was who? 1919? woodrow wilson. woodrow wilson. and woodrow wilson may have been -- [inaudible] of a man on the left, all right? but he was an anticommunist x he was stridently antiboll she e vick. described the bolsheviks as barbarians, tyrants and
disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 1/16/2011